Hi Aaron,
You have some good points, as have other contributors to this
discussion.
One possible solution is to modify the license terms. We could
include with the GPL a statement that allows the use of ANY third
party software linked to the EJB container system only through a
Java API (e.g. JMX) that does not import code from the jBoss
distribution. This clause could also allow the use of any Java API
for any purpose (which would put to rest the "can Java code be
GNU-licensed" issue).
It is apparently an acceptable use of the GPL license to modify it
with such a statement. An example--from the gnu web site--is the
license of guile (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
It seems that this would meet our goals of ensuring that modified
code is returned to the community, and would address many of the
concerns of people such as your company's clients.
Comments, anyone? --I'd be quite surprised if no one had an
opinion. :-)
-Dan
On 29 Oct 00, at 23:46, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Dan OConnor wrote:
> > In no way is the choice of license intended to prevent aggregation
> > with Tomcat, nor to the best of my knowledge does the board--or
> > the jBoss community in general--currently believe that this is the
> > result. This sort of opinion is not like source code; we can't compile
> > it and see it run (or not). I'm sorry about that. But there it is.
>
> Do you acknowledge that a number of people have a different
> opinion? If so, do you think their opinions count? That is, will you be
> happy if everyone on the jBoss board believes that jBoss can be legally
> integrated with Tomcat, or will you be happy if everyone in the world
> believes that jBoss can be legally integrated with Tomcat?
> In my case, it is not a case of what I believe, but what my
> company's clients believe, and unfortunately they do not see eye to eye
> with the jBoss board. Does that matter to you? It matters to me, because
> it matters to the people who decide what I will be paid to work on. :)
> I think we should do whatever we can to make jBoss universally
> acceptable. Because I want everyone in the universe to be able to choose
> to use it, on the basis of its features not on the basis of its license.
>
> Aaron
>
>
>
